Q: You write about the different approaches to their museums
and their changing populations in Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, Doha, New York,
and Boston. How did you pick these locations, and did one country’s or city’s approach
particularly stand out?

A: I picked these places because I was interested in looking
at pairs of countries at different stages of nation-building projects, and
where they were in their status in the world.

Sweden and Denmark are old imperial powers. They’re over
that; they’re not trying to be great world powers. The United States is,
depending on who you talk to, at its height or on its way down. Singapore and
Doha are really using museums to build their nations and stake out a more
prominent position in the world.

It’s interesting to compare the three sets, and include
settings outside the West…You have to be fair in comparing. Each country is
very different in its demography, its history, its way of managing diversity.

It’s not surprising that some of the more innovative
programming in the United States is not [found in the] the central focus—the
Brooklyn and Queens museums are not like the Met; they have more freedom.

The [world culture] museum in Sweden is doing really
innovative programming. That has to do with a commitment to creating global
citizens.

Q: You write, “What museums do in New York and Boston also
says something about how the United States sees itself in the world.” What do
you think the Boston and New York approaches say about that?

A: I think comparatively speaking, each of the museums I
focused on is trying to internationalize the American story. The main argument
about the MFA [in Boston] is that it doesn’t tell what it means for looking out. It tells
what it means for looking in, but not looking out.

Many people would say globalization means Americanization,
Westernization. There’s hubris about, The world has to come to us. Children
don’t speak foreign languages as much as in other countries.

Comparing New York and Boston, New York is more worldly. The
demographic mix is [larger]. It’s seen itself as wanting to be the capital of
culture, and the culture was always global. Boston is much more, We are the
city on the hill, and we are going to be a moral example to the rest of the
world.

I think those historical themes and roots resonate today.

Q: What do you see looking ahead for these museums and
others like them?

A: In all these places, you are seeing…a tension between
national and urban interests and the globalization of the museum world. To some
extent, they are each examples of museums connected to the global view of
museums—the ways of exhibiting, [holding] public programs, educating. It’s
taught in MFA programs around the world.

That’s driving more globalization of the museum world. How
much a museum is affected by it has to do with where a country is in the global
hierarchy.

At the same time, [there’s a realization] that the
demography of the people outside doesn’t resemble the demography of the people
inside. Museums are scrambling to get younger and more diverse [audiences].

A report recently for the Association of American Art Museum
Directors found very few minorities working in museums; [many] were janitors or
security guards. There’s a recognition that something needs to change.

Q: What do you hope readers take away from this book?

A: …I hope I made a strong case for embracing
cosmopolitanism even when we see what’s going on in the world. There are
discussions now about Muslims in this country…we’re seeing it all over this
country and the world.

The fear response is the exact opposite of what we need now.
We need bridge building and people who have a commitment to finding common
ground.

This book is about the role museums can and must play if
they want to stay open. Also, the larger piece is that it’s a transnational
world. One in seven people in the world is an international or internal
migrant.

The way we think about politics, family life, economic life,
citizenship—it needs to be rethought. I hope the book makes a plea for that.

I started out as a migration scholar. I saw
people…integrating into places while they stayed connected to the places they
came from. We need to change how we think about the nation, social protection,
inequality. Museums can be part of a much larger process.

Q: Are you working on another book?

A: You’re always working on the next book! I have two book
projects in mind. They’re very timely.

So many young people are seduced by messages of extreme
nationalism and religion…these young people are religious global citizens of
the exclusive variety: Anyone who disagrees with me, I need to show them
otherwise.

There are lots of places in the world [where you can find]
the inclusive, tolerant variety. I would like to study that. I’m working with a
colleague in Amsterdam.

The second project—if we believe global citizenship is
important, what do we need to know about? If we had been colonized by China,
not England, would we be reading Jane Eyre? It’s a product of the colonial
order…

How does the canon change? I’m interested in studying the
literary world, and how authors go from national to world literature.

Q: Anything else we should know?

A: I would hope people would help spread the word and bring
it to their favorite museum director or curator, and have a conversation about
these things.

I’m trying to bring different disciplines together—trying to
bring people in the art history world, people in the immigration world, and
people who study culture together. It’s difficult to do. To have this critical
conversation, we need help bringing communities together.

About Me

Author, THE PRESIDENT AND ME: GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE MAGIC HAT, new children's book (Schiffer, 2016). Co-author, with Marvin Kalb, of HAUNTING LEGACY: VIETNAM AND THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY FROM FORD TO OBAMA (Brookings Institution Press, 2011).